T.D.M.HISAR vs Rajesh Gupta

THE department of Telecommunication appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar partly allowing the respondent''s complaint and substantially scaling down the charges in the disputed telephone bill.

THE respondent had secured a new telephone connection which was installed on his premises in April, 1992. He was aggrieved by a notice of a demand of Rs. 1450/- towards arrears of telephonic charges which were sought to be quashed in the complaint preferred by him. On notice being issued the appellants stoutly defended the complaint .The firm plea taken was that the telephone was installed on the 1st of April, 1992 and for the very first bimonthly period the first bill of Rs. 1450/- was issued. This had not been paid by the subscriber whilst he had made payment of the second bill of Rs. 1500/-. Consequently the notice for the payment of arrears was rightly issued and pressed.

The District Forum noticed that the primal dispute was with regard to the first bill of Rs. 1450/- and also as to the time when the telephone became actually functional. Influenced only by the fact that the impugned bill showed the billing cycle from the 16th of March, 1992 to the 15th of May, 1992 the District Forum assumed that some charges must have been levied prior to the 1st of April, 1992 when the instrument was installed and granted a rebate calculated on that basis.

MR. Arun Walia, the learned Counsel for the appellant-department had forth-rightly assailed as cryptic and untenable, the reasoning of the District Forum. It was pointed out that the instrument was installed on the premises on the 1st of April, 1992. Cast iron proof was referred to that the recording and the payment of local calls charges was with effect from the 1st of April, 1992 only. It was pointed out that invariably the department has a billing cycle from the middle of the month for a bi-monthly period and computerising bills are issued in accordance therewith. Consequently the fact that the billing cycle in the first bill was shown for bi-monthly period of 16th of March, 1992 to the 15th May, 1992 was wholly in accordance with the computerised system of billing. We find patent merit in the aforesaid submission. There is not the least reason to doubt the appellant''s stand that the department follows the set procedure of a billing cycle. This is usually, if not invariably from the middle of the month for a bi-monthly period. It has been firmly advocated that the appellant-department issues all its computerised bills in accordance with the said billing cycle. Consequently when the first bill of the respondent was raised the same had to be shown in accordance with the current billing cycle from 16th of March, 1992 to 15th of May, 1992. The mere fact that the computerised bills were issued in this fashion is, therefore, no ground for assuming that any previous charges were included therein. In fact the learned Counsel for the appellants was categoric and firmly established that the charges for local calls have been levied with effect from 1st of April and not a day earlier. It is somewhat manifest that in the event of giving a new connection, the appellants can not change their whole billing cycle or to reorient the computerised billing specially for a single new connection. The District Forum''s ad verse inference was against the department merely on the point of the billing cycle alone was thus unjustified & purely conjectural.

FOR the fore-going reasons this appeal is allowed and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District FORum and dismiss the complaint preferred by the respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.